United States District Court, N.D. California
THERESE Y. CANNATA Attorneys for Plaintiff KATY SULLIVAN Also
known as Katy Marie Sullivan
M. Sorich Attorneys for Defendants WASHINGTON MUTUAL, et. al.
M. Chen U.S. District Judge.
2, 2016, plaintiff Katy Sullivan (“plaintiff” or
“Ms. Sullivan”) and defendants JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), California Reconveyance
Company (“CRC”), and U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee, etc. (U.S. Bank, and collectively,
“Defendants” or “the Bank”) (jointly,
the “Parties”) came before this Court for a case
management conference to discuss outstanding issues between
the parties. Your Honor directed the parties to meet and
confer to resolve the issues and file a joint letter
informing the outcome to the Court. Pursuant to the
Court’s order, the parties hereby submit the following
case arises from a dispute between plaintiff and defendants
over property located at 2628-2628A Sutter Street, San
Francisco, California (“Property”). Pursuant to a
settlement agreement dated February 5, 2015, plaintiff
transferred title and interest to Unit 2628A (“lower
unit”) to defendants. Plaintiff retained ownership of
all other portions of the subject property including Unit
2628 (“upper unit”), the basement, and parking
area. The parties have met and conferred on several
post-settlement issues concerning structural repairs to the
exterior porch area attached to the lower unit, the increased
charges to plaintiff’s modified loan, the increased
charges to plaintiff’s water bill, the theft and
vandalism to plaintiff’s property, and
plaintiff’s proposal to purchase the lower unit from
Structural Repairs Issues are Almost Resolved
parties met and conferred regarding the issue of whether Ms.
Sullivan is responsible for certain structural repairs on the
Property. John Sorich, counsel for Defendants, conveyed that
defendants are only aware of structural repairs to the lower
unit’s rear porch area. Mr. Sorich indicated that
defendants are solely responsible for these structural
repairs and would not be asking Ms. Sullivan to share in the
costs of such repairs. Ms. Sullivan wants to memorialize this
agreement in an addendum to the settlement agreement to avoid
any future misunderstanding.
Increased Charges to Current Loan are Possibly
parties met and conferred on the issue of increased charges
to Ms. Sullivan’s current modified loan. Mr. Sorich has
investigated this issue and determined that the increased
charges were a result of improper property taxes
(defendants’ property taxes for the lower unit) charged
to Ms. Sullivan’s escrow account. Mr. Sorich indicated
that defendants have reimbursed Ms. Sullivan for the
“amount of overpayment” (neither Counsel nor Ms.
Sullivan know the exact amount at this time). Mr. Sorich
indicated that an amount of $3, 471.31 have been refunded to
Ms. Sullivan’s account. Mr. Sorich indicated that all
future loan statements will reflect the previously agreed
upon monthly mortgage payment amount ($3, 094.51 per month).
Ms. Sullivan has not received any refunds as of the filing of
this letter. Ms. Sullivan’s most recent loan statement,
received on the week of June 6, 2016, continues to reflect a
monthly payment of $4, 155.19, due July 1, 2016. This has to
be corrected. The parties will continue to meet and confer to
ensure that the full reimbursement is made and that the
revised loan statements are accurately stated by defendants.
Increased Charges to Water Bill - No Commitment Yet
parties met and conferred regarding the issue of Ms.
Sullivan’s monthly water bill doubling since defendants
began entering the Property in late March 2016. There is only
one water bill account for the entire property as the
condominium conversion did not require the separation of the
water bill account. Mr. Sorich indicated that he received no
information from defendants’ vendor to suggest that
they left the water running in the lower unit. Mr. Sorich
stated that the lower unit has not been occupied and there
has been no water usage. Mr. Sorich has requested that Ms.
Sullivan produce the water bills to determine the amount of
the water bill increase. Ms. Sullivan believes the water bill
has increased by approximately $100 for the months of April,
May, and June 2016. Ms. Sullivan previously produced notices
from the Public Utilities Commission reflecting continuous
water use on the Property. Ms. Sullivan will also produce the
most recent water bills to defendants. Mr. Sorich and
defendants have not indicated that they would reimburse Ms.
Sullivan for the amount of the increased water bill charges.
Ms. Sullivan renews her request that defendants provide the
contact information of its vendor who handles maintenance for
the lower unit, so that this issue may be resolved directly
with the vendor.
Theft and Vandalism - ...